In New York, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are challenged in three areas: 1) trial counsel ineffectiveness 2) appellate counsel ineffectiveness and, 3) plea counsel ineffectiveness. These areas of ineffectiveness contain common requirements. First, a defendant must prove that counsel’s representation fell below ordinary attorney representation. Second, the defendant must prove their case was harmed in some manner due to counsel’s conduct. The case of Strickland v. Washington, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) provides excellent guidance when challenging any ineffectiveness claim.
The prejudicial component is what differs most between trial, appellate and plea counsel’s ineffectiveness. Generally, establishing trial counsel prejudice requires a defendant to prove that had counsel been effective, the outcome of the trial or sentence would have been different.
For appellate counsel, prejudice can be established by proving an attorney abandoned clearly stronger issues in comparison to issues which were presented in the appellate brief. The case of Smith v. Robbins, 120 S.Ct. 746 (2000) provides excellent guidance when challenging the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel.
For a defendant who entered into a plea agreement, the person usually must establish that had counsel been effective, the plea agreement wouldn’t have been accepted and the defendant would have instead proceeded to trial. The case of Hill v. Lockhart, 106 S.Ct. 366 (1985) provides excellent guidance when challenging the ineffectiveness of counsel surrounding the acceptance of a plea agreement.
Now, let’s identify where you can find the State’s requirements for challenging counsel’s ineffectiveness in each of these three areas.
Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel
When evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in New York, the state’s constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel is met “when the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation.” See: People v Benevento, 697 N.E.2d 584 (NY 1998). This is a slightly different requirement than established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington.
The difference between the federal and state standard is that the state standard offers greater protection than the federal requirement because, “under our State Constitution, even in the absence of a reasonable probability of a different outcome, inadequacy of counsel will still warrant reversal whenever a defendant is deprived of a fair trial.” See: People v Caban, 833 N.E.2d 213 (NY 2005).
The federal prejudice requirement of Strickland is what primarily separates it from the New York state standard. Under the state’s standard, a defendant need not fully satisfy the prejudice test set forth by Strickland. The state’s prejudice analysis instead focuses on the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. See: People v Stultz, 810 N.E.2d 883 (NY 2004).
However, under both standards, a defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.
The utilization of a CPL 440.10 motion is the appropriate avenue for reviewing the entirety of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when the claim is not otherwise procedurally foreclosed. See: People v Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108 (NY 2011).
Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel
When evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in New York, the state’s constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel is met when the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided “meaningful representation.”
New York adopted “meaningful representation” as the measure of effective assistance of appellate counsel and commented that it would be inapt to have one standard for trial counsel and another for appellate counsel. See: People v Stultz, 810 N.E.2d 883 (NY 2004).
When analyzing the performance of appellate counsel, it’s important to recognize that an attorney is not required to argue every possible issue on appeal. An appellate attorney need not, and should not, raise every nonfrivolous claim. Rather, counsel should consider all available issues and present the claims which maximize the likelihood of appellate success.
Ineffective Assistance of Plea Counsel
To establish ineffective assistance of plea counsel in New York, the defendant must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him or her. The prejudice requirement is satisfied by establishing that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors he, or she, would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. See: People v Parson, 55 N.E.3d 1058 (NY 2016).
To learn more about presenting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, I encourage you to read my post titled, What is ineffective assistance of counsel?
What legal book helps present an ineffective assistance of counsel claim?
The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations has a complete section filled with case references to help a defendant support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. There are also subsections providing case citations specific for trial, appellate, and post conviction relief counsel. With over 120 topically organized sections, nearly every defendant will find substantive case references to help identify and detail the acts or omissions wherein counsel may have performed deficiently.
The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations will also help a defendant before and during the criminal trial phase itself. Every criminal defendant should be active in their case’s progression and presentation. By becoming familiar with the many topics covered in this book, a defendant can ensure that counsel is functioning in an effective manner before a jury determination is ever rendered. Buy now